If enacted, the proposed tax revisions will adversely affect

Hello, Mr. Beckham, or shall I say "Sir"? You pose a fair question. In any SC question, you ought to take the time to read the entire sentence to ensure that tunnel vision does not restrict your approach and lead you into making an erroneous judgment. In this case, the adjective falls ahead of the noun in the comparison, homes, and if you were to clip off the sentence at the end of the underlined portion, you would indeed be comparing moderately priced homes to other moderately priced homes:

If enacted, the proposed tax revisions will adversely affect all homeowners, although moderately priced homes are likely to suffer less of a drop in value than those...

The problem is, we have contextual information after the underlined portion that further defines the type of homes in the latter part of the comparison: at the top of the market. This is no different from writing or saying,

Poor people are no fundamentally different than those within the upper tiers of society.

We understand from the context that we are comparing people to people, not poor people specifically to other poor people in a nonsensical manner (i.e. poor people within the upper tiers of society). The description of which types of people, or, in the earlier sentence, of which types of homes, need not be placed in the same order to draw a proper comparison. Follow the contextual clues for the entire sentence.

I hope that helps. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
_________________

Option D, if literally taken, means that the drop in value of homes is less than the homes. So we're illogically comparing the value to homes

D) are likely to suffer a drop in value that is less than those homes
Can we say that D has incorrect comparison
"drop in value" is getting compared with "those homes"?

Hi RSP92, absolutely! Nice analysis.

Notice that that in D refers to drop in value. So, D reads:

...drop in value is less than those homes at the top of the market.

For D to be correct, it should have been rephrased as:

F) are likely to suffer a drop in value that is less than that for those homes

Perhaps not very elegant, but at least, the comparison is logical in option F).

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses this aspect of "comparisons", its application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
_________________

Here's the official explanation provided by the GMAC for this question:

This sentence compares moderately priced homes to homes at the top of the market, predicting how much the homes in each category will likely decline in value if certain tax revisions are passed. The main clause uses the indicative mood to predict the effect of enacting the tax increase. Since the subordinate clause elaborates on the prediction in the main clause, it should likewise use an indicative verb form suitable for describing future events. The wording must clearly, concisely, and idiomatically compare the moderately priced homes to the homes at the top of the market; homes should not be compared to themselves or to a drop in value.

Option A: Since the main clause uses an indicative future tense, and the subordinate clause elaborates on the prediction in the main clause, the subjunctive would is inappropriate. The use of liable is strained in this context; liable suggests being potentially subject to a bad consequence, whereas suffering less of a drop in value is a relatively good consequence.

Option B: As explained above, the subjunctive would is inappropriate, and the use of liable is strained in this context. The use of if as an unclear shorthand for they would if they were implicitly compares the moderately priced homes under predicted circumstances to themselves under imaginary circumstances. But since the comparison elaborates the prediction about how the proposed tax revisions will adversely affect all homeowners, the context suggests that the writer intended to compare the tax revisions' predicted effects on different homes of different values.

Option C: The use of if as an unclear shorthand for they would if they were implicitly compares the moderately priced homes under predicted circumstances to themselves under imaginary circumstances. But since the comparison elaborates the prediction about how the proposed tax revisions will adversely affect all homeowners, the context suggests that the writer intended to compare the tax revisions' predicted effects on different homes of different values.

Option D: This absurdly compares the drop in value to the homes at the top of the market, rather than comparing moderately priced homes to homes at the top of the market as intended.

Option E: Correct. This correctly compares moderately priced homes to homes at the top of the market and appropriately uses the indicative verb form are rather than the conditional verb form would to elaborate on the prediction in the main clause.

The correct answer is E.

Please note that I'm not the author of this explanation. I'm just posting it here since I believe it can help the community.

(A) are liable to suffer a lesser drop in value than would homes ... Would ????
(B) would be liable to suffer a lesser drop in value than if ... its not a complete thought because of IF
(C) will likely suffer less of a drop in value than if .... its not a complete thought because of IF
(D) are likely to suffer a drop in value that is less than those homes .. wrong comparison Homes compared to value
(E) are likely to suffer less of a drop in value than those . It is
_________________

[quote="eybrj2"]If enacted, the proposed tax revisions will adversely affect all homeowners, although moderately priced homes are liable to suffer a less drop in value than would homes at the top of the market.

(A) are liable to suffer a lesser drop in value than would homes
(B) would be liable to suffer a lesser drop in value than if
(C) will likely suffer less of a drop in value than if
(D) are likely to suffer a drop in value that is less than those homes
(E) are likely to suffer less of a drop in value than those

"would" in choice A is a terrible mistake.
first, why we change the tense from "are" to "would", which can be future or hypothetical action. we dont need to care whether it is future or hypothetical . the change in tense should not be done.

'would homes" makes problem in ellipsis. the cut off part must be somewhere in the first clause of comparison. this rule should be applied always. this means choice A is
"....value than would homes are liable...". there is no "be" in the first clause, we can not have "would be" in the second clause of comparison.
this is not grammatical.

if choice A is " than would be homes at the top.." , choice A is correct.

If enacted, the proposed tax revisions will adversely affect all homeowners, although moderately priced homes are liable to suffer a less drop in value than would homes at the top of the market.

(A) are liable to suffer a lesser drop in value than would homes

Use of 'liable' is incorrect.

(B) would be liable to suffer a lesser drop in value than if

-- Use of 'if' is unclear. Use of 'liable' is incorrect.

(C) will likely suffer less of a drop in value than if

-- Use of 'if' is unclear.

(D) are likely to suffer a drop in value that is less than those homes

- Compares 'a drop in value' to 'homes at the top of the market'.

(E) are likely to suffer less of a drop in value than those

Answer is E.
_________________

I'm really not seeing a sufficient explanation as to why E is correct.
As many have pointed out, "those" should be referring back to "moderately priced houses" and not just "houses".

Why exactly is "those" in this instance not ambiguous? I deliberately chose A for this reason despite the awkwardness of the prose.

Hi fireagablast, there is considerable flexibility that those exhibits in this regard.

For example:

Jack's shoes are bigger than those of Peter.

Here, those is referring to shoes and not to Jack's shoes.

An official example:

The eyes of the elephant seal adapt to darkness more quickly than do those of any other animal yet tested, allowing it to hunt efficiently under the gloomy conditions at its feeding depths of between 300 and 700 meters.

Again, those is referring to eyes and not to eyes of the elephant seal.
_________________

Generally I understand the concept. It just seems like "moderately priced houses" should be the entire noun as opposed to "houses of a moderate price".
I would absolutely argue that "Poor people have less money than those who are rich" is more ambiguous than "Poor people have less money than rich people do" for the same reason.
Same thing with "Expensive cars are faster than those that are cheap".

Why exactly are expensive cars not treated as the entire noun or poor people not treated as the entire noun?

There is a discrepancy between of less and lesser between the original sentence and option A. Please correct that.

Also, in option E -

although moderately priced homes are likely to suffer less of a drop in value than those [homes]

.... suffer something <less of a drop in value> than homes .....

Here, drop in value is being compared to homes??? I think we do need a verb here to remove the ambiguity. Option A adds a verb.

I suffer ligament injury less than him. - ????? i suffer him??
I suffer ligament injury less than he does.
I suffer less of a ligament injury than he does.
I suffer less of a ligament injury than him - ?????

I am still perplexed to see that the OA is E. If that is the case, requesting Experts, GMATNinja Abhi077 to weigh in here and resolve this once and for all

I have made the required corrections. Thank you.

As far as your doubt goes, The comparison here is in between 'moderately priced homes' and 'Top of the market homes' There is no ambiguity present here. Ellipses to this extent are permissible. you can go through this article to know more https://e-gmat.com/blogs/ellipses-in-co ... ping-verbs

Hope this helps

Hi fireagablast, I am pretty sure the above sentences (using those) would not be considered ambiguous on GMAT.

An official example:

Ranked as one of the most important of Europe's young playwrights, Franz Xaver Kroetz has written 40 plays; his works—translated into more than 30 languages—are produced more often than those of any other contemporary German dramatist.

those is referring to works, and not his works.

Another official example:

Although women’s wages are improving, Department of Labor statistics show that the ratio of their earnings to those of men has been have been roughly static since 1960.

those is referring to earnings, and not their earnings.


A lot of our understanding of GMAT, derives from patterns of correct/in-correct structures on GMAT official sentences. An exact reason for this usage might definitely be a worthwhile academic pursuit.
_________________

E is the clear winner

A is wrong because of usage of lesser

Allow me to give a clear unambiguous analysis.

If enacted, the proposed tax revisions will adversely affect all homeowners, although moderately priced homes are liable to suffer a lesser drop in value than would homes at the top of the market.

(A) are liable to suffer a lesser drop in value than would homes - LESSER is a wrong comparative word. LESS (than) is the right usage.

(B) would be liable to suffer a lesser drop in value than if - The use of IF should catch your attention. We are comparing 2 instances and not talking about hypothetical situations

(C) will likely suffer less of a drop in value than if - same as B

(D) are likely to suffer a drop in value that is less than those homes - What is THAT referring to? THAT refers to the drop in value (say $ 10,000) witnessed by moderately priced homes and comparing this drop ($ 10,000) to the drop that would happen for top end homes. The sentence is clearing not comparing absolute values - it is hinting more at % values

(E) are likely to suffer less of a drop in value than those - Clear answer. Moderately priced homes will witness less of a drop in value. SIMPLE !

a side question on similar lines:

please help with the correct comparative form using principle of countable and uncountable

he will return in fewer/less than 30 days- ?

there are less/fewer hot days this summer- ?

GMATNinja Can't "those" in option refer to "moderately priced homes" and change the meaning entirely?

Not really. If we replace "those" with "moderately priced homes", here's what we get:

"... moderately priced homes are likely to suffer less of a drop in value than moderately priced homes at the top of the market."

By definition, a moderately priced home isn't at the "top of the market", so we know that this isn't what we want.

The whole point of using "that of" or "those of" constructions is to talk about two different things that are related or similar in some way. Here, have an example:

• "The rules of American football are more complicated than those of Australian football."

What do the things being compared have in common? They're both a set of rules. How are they different? One is for American football and one is for Australian football. Could "those" technically refer to "rules of American football"? Maybe, but that would be like comparing pizza to the pizza in Chicago -- the former includes the latter, so we can't really compare and contrast the two.

• "... moderately priced homes are likely to suffer less of a drop in value than moderately priced homes at the top of the market."

If we assume that "those" refers to "moderately priced homes," then the first thing in the comparison INCLUDES the second thing in the comparison. So we're comparing/contrasting X to a subset of X, and that doesn't make any sense. It's like saying, "pizza is tastier than pizza in Chicago."

• "moderately priced homes are likely to suffer less of a drop in value than homes at the top of the market."

What do the things being compared have in common? They're both homes. How do they differ? Price, specifically moderately priced (middle of the market) versus top of the market.

In (E), the logical interpretation is perfectly clear given the context, and there's no reason to force a nonsensical comparison by using "those of" in a questionable way. So the "those of" is fine, and we have to look for other decision points.

I hope that helps!
_________________